Editorial: Uphold the Constitution
A modern state guided by the Constitution and principles of secularism and equality cannot allow itself to be distracted by the disputes inspired by mythological claims and contested medieval history. If the bone of contention happens to focus on places of worship, then the consequences can be dangerous for society. The row involving the Kashi […]
A modern state guided by the Constitution and principles of secularism and equality cannot allow itself to be distracted by the disputes inspired by mythological claims and contested medieval history. If the bone of contention happens to focus on places of worship, then the consequences can be dangerous for society. The row involving the Kashi Vishwanath temple-Gyanvapi mosque complex is one such combustible issue whose origin lies in contested history. Unless handled with sensitivity and fairness, such disputes can lead to turmoil. The Supreme Court is facing a big challenge in finding an amicable solution. Since the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which froze the religious identity of any site of worship on the day of India’s Independence, is at the heart of the Gyanvapi dispute, it is for the apex court to take a call on it and put an end to the dispute. For now, it has asked the Varanasi district magistrate to secure the area where a Shivling was claimed to have been found during a videographic survey of the mosque area without impeding or restricting the rights of Muslims to access and offer namaz at the mosque. Hearing a petition by five Hindu women seeking access to pray at “a shrine behind the western wall of the mosque complex”, the Varanasi court had last month appointed Advocate Commissioner Ajay Kumar Mishra to carry out an inspection of the site and prepare videography of the survey. The mosque committee challenged this before the Allahabad High Court which dismissed the plea on April 21. The committee then approached the Supreme Court.
The Places of Worship Act clearly forbids changing the religious character of any place of worship, with August 15, 1947, as the cut-off point. Basically, the Act said that if a site was a temple on the day of Independence, it shall remain a temple and vice versa and the principle applies to all religious sites. This provides an excellent solution for a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic society like India and helps resolve the debate centred around conflicted architecture. India is defined by its Constitution and its secular values, not by the medieval yardsticks or mythological claims. The apex court did the right thing by directing that no worshippers could be stopped from offering namaz on the premises as a consequence of the lower court’s order, which the Muslim side said was passed without hearing its arguments. The bigger challenge now is that the SC has to expeditiously decide on the mandate of the Places of Worship Act, which bars the kind of petitions that lower courts in Varanasi and Mathura admitted and heard over the past year. In the 2019 Ayodhya judgment, the apex court held that the law protects the constitutional values by assuring every religious community that their places of worship will be preserved.
Now you can get handpicked stories from Telangana Today on Telegram everyday. Click the link to subscribe.
Click to follow Telangana Today Facebook page and Twitter .
